dcaufandomcom-20200222-history
DC Animated Universe:Community Portal/Archive
This is the Forum where you can discuss the various aspects of the DCAU, this wiki, or similar interests. For Assignments and Canon issues see the Community Portal. Canon & Conjecture * According to the current version of this page, video games are not included, and therefore the so-called Lost Episode, which comes from a Sega CD game should be excluded. Personally, I believe it should be included, along with the other games, but the entries should carry a note stating that the games are not part of official DCAU continuity. --BoneGnawer 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC) * To what extent should we include conjecture based on the comics version of the DCU? With no conjecture, we lack even names for many characters, especially among minor characters appearing in JLU. Too much conjecture starts to turn this into a DC "hypertime" wiki, so we need to establish a "conjecture threshold" Perhaps conjectural information should be followed by "(conjecture)" or cite the source, i.e., "(conjecture - Flash comics)". --BoneGnawer 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC) * Teen Titans - With both TT & JLU cancelled, we'll probably never have an answer to the continuity question. Though there is evidence to support continuity, as I've cited in the Titans entry. --BoneGnawer 19:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC) : Let me try to address your three points: :* The original point of this wikicity is to try to cover the entire continuity of the [[DCAU|DC Animated Universe]]. It seems pretty easy to included the animated series and the movies, because most were done by similar production teams who attempted to shape a coherent universe. Once you include things based on the animated universe (DCAU Comics, video games, et cetera) you run into some impossible continuity problems, as those wrote for the comics and video games were not bound by the DCAU happenings, and those for the production team, such as Bruce Timm, have expressed several times that the DCAU Comics and Video games have no bearing on the shows. I'm not against having articles on Batman: Rise of Sin Tzu or Adventures in the DC Universe, but we shouldn't let events that occur in those articles effect the history of the characters we are trying to document. The Lost Episode, I believe that's what its called, but I have never seen it, is included because it was created with DCAU production behind it. I read somewhere that the BTAS crew worked on it, but correct me if I'm mistaken. :* Conjecture on origins and names are good for articles, as long as it is separated from the main article (a background, out-of-universe section). I don't think I've stretched the point anywhere, but I was trying to create this as an "all-knowing" encyclopedia within the DCAU, probably some years after "Epilogue" or better yet, past "New Kids in Town." This is similar to the function of many other wikis, such as Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha. Now, the "in-universe encyclopedia" covers half of this wikicity, the other half being a reference guide to DCAU production (series, movies, people involved), which should be expanded to include video games and comics, in much the same way as Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha do. :* Yeah, we'll never know about. I didn't want to include Teen Titans, because at the time the site was found evidence was heavily pointing towards them being separate (Speedy and "Kid Flash" episodes came later). I am a great fan of the Teen Titans show and I think a couple articles can be created regarding the Teen Titans (probably just a main "Teen Titans" article to deal with the show and bring about points of possible connections, and dis-connections, with the DCAU. Perhaps even things like Characters in Teen Titans and the DCAU can be created). Your Titans article, and some others, need to be edited to be more "in-universe" (the rest are good in a background section, e.g. Background information or something). : Regardless, your points are valid and I think need to be fleshed out more and explained if necessary. Great work, btw BoneGnawer, you seem to be one of the top contributors.--Tim Thomason 11:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC) *Yeah, I was wondering about whether to get into things like character's real names/secret IDs when they haven't been mentioned in the shows. In a fit of excitement over the upcoming episode, I've been playing around with some Legion of Super-Heroes-related articles. I can rattle off Legionnaires' real names all day long, but it's not like the show is (in all probability) going to do the same. In many cases, there have been little variations in characters' backstories from time to time... but on the other hand, I can't think of many instances where a character's real name has been changed from the comics incarnation. With background/cameo-type characters, it's usually pretty clear who's supposed to be who, and it's enormously unlikely that anything will happen in dialogue to contradict the comics. There are a few exceptions where a character's exact identity is a little fuzzy... is Dr. Mid-nite Charles McNider or Pieter Cross? Is Mirror Master Sam Scudder or Evan McCulloch? Well, okay, that one's easy since MM didn't have a Scottish accent, but you get the point... :With Legionnaires specifically, you start getting into other issues like powers and home planets and (occasionally) species. I'm just wondering if I should go ahead and include the info, or what... and if so, where to draw the line. I'm certainly not looking to include complete info on the comics versions' histories, but some of the basic info seems like it would be pretty safe to include. --ElScoob 12:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC) * I'm the same way with the GL Corps, that's why I brought it up. If I mention that Kilowog is a Bolovax Vikian, do we then need an article on Bolovax Vikians and an article for the planet Bolovax Vik? I think that the basic biographical info should be included, without developing additional articles to explain the terms, rather have a link to a wikipedia entry or a DC comics wiki at the end of the article under the heading "more information" --BoneGnawer 12:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC) * I think conjecture based on comics with two things is alright: :# A superhero identity (most JLUers didn't have identity, and some still don't when I started their articles), so we can have more names, and possibly move if a different name is given. :# Maybe an alien species, although I don't think we need to have it linked to an article if there is nothing known about the species outside of the one known member.--Tim Thomason 13:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC) *Is there a DC Comics wiki? If we can safely assume that anything in the DCAU that might need fleshing out would have a corresponding comic article, I say the best thing to do, in the name of simplicity and consistency, would be to only have biographical information from the DCAU itself, and we could develop a "More about this character" link or template or something pointing people to the character's comic article. And while I'm here, I don't see why the video games and "adventures" comics shouldn't be included. Coming from the POV of the Wookieepedia and the Star Wars Expanded Universe, anything that's released officially in any medium, if it's set in the DCAU, is no less official than the animated series themselves. If there were a contradiction, the shows/DTVs would certainly win out, like with the SW films, but 99.9% of the time they would merge fine, and there's a lot of good material in there that's worth covering. CooperTFN 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC) :*I don't know if there's a DCU wiki, but that's a good idea. I am in favor of using DCU-based conjecture in the limited fashion discussed above. Having a link out to that character/planet/etc's article on a DCU wiki would be a good idea, though. Also, rules of canon from one universe can't really be applied to another. It really depends on the universe's creator/owner/producer's word on the subject. For example, George Lucas says that anything written about Star Wars is canon unless he says otherwise, or its contradicted in one of the films. According to Paramount, in Star Trek, only live-action movies and TV series are canon, excluding all books, comics, video games, The Animated Series, etc. Since Bruce Timm says the comics and video games aren't canon, then they're not. He's pretty much the George Lucas of the DCAU, or at least one of them. That doesn't mean we can't have articles on them, but we just don't use the events and info in them to reflect on other articles. --BoneGnawer 16:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC) ::Is there a quote online where Timm says they're not canon? I think Paul Dini's the Lucas of the DCAU if anyone is, but Timm's certanly important enough to go by his opinion. I like the idea of having articles for them but not referencing them elsewhere. On the DC wiki subject, I found this. It's not an official wiki site, so we wouldn't be able to use transwiki code, but it should serve just as well as a "further information" reference. CooperTFN 04:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC) :Well, I believe we have a consensus, I'm going to update the canon section. --BoneGnawer 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Comment Your Edits Hey folks, can we all try to start using the Summary field when we make edits? I know I'm just as bad on this as everyone else (I think I comment every 12th change or so ;-) ), but It just makes it easier to look at what's been changed, and for others to expand on your work. --BoneGnawer 21:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Characters, Places, Cast & Crew I have removed the characters section as we have a characters list. "Places" and "Cast and Crew" lists should be created and then those sections should be removed. Images New Source and Licensing Format I’d like to propose a uniform format for images descriptions. I like this one here. Opinions and suggestions are welcome. ― ThailogTalk Choosing Images Lets define a policy on character images. Here are some suggested guidelines, lets discuss: *300px width for info box *Screencaps, not promotional images *Most recent character design should be in the info box *Characters who have undergone redesigns should have each design represented by an image within the article. -- BoneGnawer 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC) :I agree with everything except for #1. Personally I think 250px is perfect. 200 it too small, and 300 is too big. That also depends on the format(?) of the picture. 250px is perfect for 4:3 pics -- but not for 16:9, or for pics like this. :Also, it would be useful to add a portal or category for articles with missing pictures, such as this here. And every time you get the chance, please add a name to the prospect picture, again, like that one. This facilitates the submitter. :As for #3, I think it makes sense for those characters that appeared with the recent design for a considerable amount of time. Supergirl, for example, should have a pic of her 90s outfit, because she only had the new one on one episode, out of all the others she was in, JLU included ― ThailogTalk *What about characters that underwent several redesigns ― vis-à-vis the Joker? ― ThailogTalk ::Is the Killer Frost picture a pan, or is it cropped? My original spec, way back when, was 200px, but I agree that its too small, especially with high-res monitors being more common. However, I'm fine with anything between 200 & 300px :::* The Killer Frost picture is cropped; it just happens not to be 4:3... it is, um, wider(?) downards. ― ThailogTalk ::Having a category for articles without pictures sounds great. ::On #3, I sort of agree with you, but I'm looking for an across-the-board guideline. ::See Batman I for an example of how to deal with characters with multiple redesigns. ::-- BoneGnawer 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC) :::Whoa, whoa, whoa. No way. Screencaps suck. Plain and simple. It's easier and looks better to go with promotional images. It looks more professional (while we're at making things look more professional, the logo needs a makeover). --'Redemption'Talk 19:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Other Sites' Images *Heres the deal. Images should not be limited to just 200px. Depending on the original size of the image, adjustments should be made so it actually fits the infobox properly. I'm not saying go for like 500px but so it looks neat. If needed, the image should be edited so there isn't any outside background hogging it up. See Amanda Waller to see what I mean. :The Amanda Waller image looks nice, but 300px stretches the character box and crowds the top of the article. I don't think the character box should take up more than half of the width of the article when viewing at 1024x768. See wikipedia's tv show, biographical and fictional character articles. The info box is kept to a minimum width.--BoneGnawer 01:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) *Images should NOT be taken from any other sites (unless it's promotional, in which case, please remove the watermark). Worlds Finest, JL Resource, JLAnimated, and DCAU Animated (now it's just a gallery) don't really appreciate it when their images are being used. The owner of DCAU (Kryptcom) has stated before that he will never allow the useage of his images on any other site. Meaning, no more model images. I'm sorry to tell you folks that but thats just the way it goes. --Redemption 23:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC) :Please refrain from dictating terms. Its very confrontational and not conducive to civil discussion. That said, images at World's Finest and JLAnimated are mostly screengrabs, promotional images and character models. They belong to DC, WB and Cartoon Network or some combination of the three. There is no reason not to use them. The same "fair use" concept that makes it OK for those sites to post the images applies to posting them here. Just don't use any of their original art. As for Kryptcom, there are a great many pieces of original art on that site, however, there are also many DC/WB/Cartoon Network-owned character models. There's nothing wrong with using the character models, but I wouldn't use their original art. To make it simple, if the image is a character model, screengrab, or promotional image, its fair use. If the image is another individual's original art, then its not fair to use. --BoneGnawer 01:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC) **All of Kryptcoms work is fan-made (which technically makes them fanon). If you want to use models then use C-Toons. As for websites, it simply doesn't look good. When someone who has browsed their site and then they come here, see their images and then they say to themselves "wait, isn't that from so-and-so?" It simply doesn't look good. It makes it look like you can't get your own and that you have to rip off some other site. --Redemption 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC) ::*The point you're missing is that character models, screengrabs, and promotional images are not "their images". They were released by the production company, and no website owns them. Anyone can capture the same screengrabs. So duplication is inevitable given the finite image resources, and the only entities that can honestly claim ownership are DC, WB & Cartoon Network. ::*As for Kryptcom, not all of the images there are original. For example, the images at http://www.dcuanimated.com/gallery/v/BBJusticeLeagueUnlimited/ are all WB character models with the exception of Batman and the Flash. Also, the majority of their JL and JLU images are CN character models. ::--BoneGnawer 02:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC) *Actually, none of their screengrabs were released by WB. Promotional images, I have no problem with. And if anyone can capture the same screen, why don't we instead of resorting to just taking from their sites? All the sites have disclaimers that you have to respect. Just because they don't follow whatever CN/WBs rules doesn't mean that you don't have to follow theirs. Two wrongs don't make a right. And I can easily tell you that Kryptcoms images are his own. They were originally C-Toons but then touched up, making them his. --Redemption 03:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC) ::*WB/CN released the shows, therefore, they released and own every frame. Say what you like, but I can tell the difference between the model makers' work and the fan work on that site. Unless you can tangibly prove me wrong, I stand by my judgement. No one is obliged to follow their rules because they don't have the right to make them. I can tell you that I don't want you to go to Paris, but unless I'm a representative of the French government, its just a ludicrous statement and you don't have to pay me any attention. The same concept applies here. WF, Kryptcom and whomever else, don't own those images, so any "rules" they make concerning them are immaterial. --BoneGnawer 03:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC) **Like I said, two wrongs don't make a right. I can tell you that Kryptcoms models are his because I'' gave him the references. The references were poor quality models that were completley cleaned up and redone by Kryptcom. They ripped the images. They have hold over them. Grab your own images. Is that so hard to do? Are you physically incapable of it? It's their site, their urls, their images. They have every right to make rules. Especially since it was their effort to grab them (no matter how easy it is). for their site. Not this one. --Redemption 03:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC) ::*There are no "two wrongs" here. The other sites use WB/CN's images under the auspices of "fair use". They are not wrong to do so, and neither are we if we use the same images. We are not infringing on WB/CN because this is a "fair use" of the images. We are not infringing on the other websites because they don't own the images. --BoneGnawer 04:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC) :::* First of all, we shouldn't use any fan-made images here (we're supposed to chronicle the DCAU as it exists), so if Kryptcom is all fair use then we shouldn't use it. Now, it is basic internet etiquette or something to at least acknowledge where an image is from, and most of the other wikisites, at least the well-established ones do so. I have created a page at DC Animated Universe:Images (and also see its talk) which should cover the current problems. I was contacted by the website owner of one of the sites we are apparently "ripping off" and I need to make sure that all the images uploaded are properly cited or else they cannot stay. This shouldn't be to tough a task, even a "this image is from so and so" should cover it for now, and we'll fix any problems later. Someone went to the trouble to make these screenshots/model sheets (most aren't official) and they wish to be acknowledged. Fair use is a tough concept and it doesn't necessarily crossover to the images of other sites (especially if there is a logo in the corner).--Tim Thomason 10:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC) ::::*It is basic internet etiquette—and it is also Wikia policy that all images must be identified with who holds the copyright and what the license is, especially if they are being used under a claim of fair use. If you are unsure about the copyright status of these images, please do not use them; there are many other scans and copies of official images floating around the web, though these do look nice. Fair use is tricky, and it's better not to use things if you're not certain you can. It looks like Tim and some others have the right idea here, so I will leave this at that for now and check back in a while to see how the image situation is going. Thanks! Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Unfortunatly, Tim. That isn't going to do it. The images can easily be marked that they are used with permission and it's fair use. I request that the images in question be removed immediatly. I suggest you take a look at http://www.dcuanimated.com/gallery/v/GreenLantern_TAS/ and http://www.dcuanimated.com/gallery/v/JusticeLeagueUnlimited/ Being that these two albums are pretty much the ones that Kryptcom can definitly make claim to making. --Redemption 23:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC) :See comments here Image talk:Abinsur1.gif. Images are in the process of being marked correctly. --BoneGnawer 20:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC) *No. Even if credited, you need Kryptcoms permission first (which I doubt he'll give you considering his past answers to the question), as it says in his copyright (which it actually says do not use). We're just going to have to do without them.--69.117.70.212 03:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :*His copyright statement is invalid. Since its obvious that you won't see that reality and since there are plenty of other serviceable images elsewhere, in order to avoid an endless argument with a proverbial brick wall, I'll concede the point. --BoneGnawer 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC) *Gah. Forgot to login. Anyway...how is his copyright invalid? He created the images. You need his permission. End of story. --Redemption 22:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC) In case you misread my last comment, I've given in. You won this point not because you're right, but because I'm tired of arguing it and have better things to do with my time than to educate strangers who refuse to be educated. Since you asked, I'll try to explain one last time. He created a depiction of a copyrighted image. Anything (drawing, sculpture, prose, etc.) recognizable as one of DC's characters, Batman, for example, falls under DC's copyright. The creator of the work has no rights to it. They cannot sell it, and they cannot dictate terms of its distrubution. Only DC has that right. The artist could claim they have such rights, but they would be wrong and would be thrown out as invalid if a legal judgement needed to be made. My earlier suggestion of giving him credit for the images is the most he has a right to expect, but doesn't even have a legal right to it, its just good manners to credit the artist. They are nice images, but they're not so nice that I'm willing to continue this tedious, and ultimately pointless dispute. Frankly, Redemption, your stubbornness on this issue, and your general tendency to dictate terms rather than discuss options has started to turn me off to this project. I don't mean to pick on you. I'm pointing out behaviors I find distasteful, and at times offensive. I hope that you will choose to devote some effort to improving your conversational and debate skills. The following phrases are adversarial at best, and offensive at worst. You may want to consider using alternatives: * ''Heres the deal. - dictating terms is not a way to reach a consensus. * repeated use of should and should not without being prefaced by I believe or I think * How many times do I have to say it? (Believe me, I've felt like using the same phrase in this conversation, but its not constructive.) * Doesn't matter. - its dismissive of the other person's argument. Again, please don't take this as an attack. I feel as if I have been attacked throughout this discussion, and I hope that impression is mistaken and can be avoided in the future by considering this critique of your style of debate. --BoneGnawer 23:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC) *Thank you. And I'm not offended at all. I knew what I was doing. --Redemption 01:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC) * Are you saying that you have been intentionally belligerent? --207.78.135.10 15:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Oops, I forgot to log in above. I hope I misread your statement. I'd like you to look at this image. This clearly illustrates that not all of the images on Kryptcom's site are original art. Minor alterations do not make for original art. Some of those images are original, for example, Justice Lord versions of Flash & Aquaman. A great many, however, are mildly altered or unaltered character models. --BoneGnawer 18:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC) True enough. Kryptcoms are mostly based on official WB models but they are different enough in color (and size & detail) that he can claim them as his own since he did take the time to actually make the new image. Just like my images (both models and screens) are enhanced a bit. And, several of his images are also unique. Like his Aztec and Booster Gold (I do have the actual model reference). While others are seriously damaged images that he took and went over them (Hawk and Dove, Hro Talak). Only DC has the power to claim his images. --Redemption 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC) : "Only DC has the power to claim his images." - I can't believe you said that. That's exactly the point I've been making. Only DC can claim them, and therefore only DC can make rules about their distribution. Not Kryptcom. Also, by your logic above, I could take any of Kryptcom's images, change a shade of color or a detail or two and then claim it as my own original art. --BoneGnawer 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC) ::For the record, I'm not advocating using the Kryptcom images anymore. However, if you're altering the images you post, I'd ask you to replace them with unaltered screens & models. By your definition, your alterations constiutute original art, which would be 'fan art'. As someone stated above, lets stick to the unaltered images to present the DCAU as it exists. Before you cry hypocrite, I never advocated 'fan art'. My argument over the Kryptcom images was based on the fact that they're neither 'original art' nor 'fan art' (at least not the ones I had intended to use). I understand that you may think you're improving the images, however that's a matter of taste. What you see as an improvement, another fan may see as damaging the original image. --BoneGnawer 21:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC) You misunderstand. What I meant is that only Kryptcom and DC has the power to claim the images. We're a third party. That site is between Kryptcom and DC comics. We can't touch them. Just like this site is between DC and Wiki. And technically, my images were ripped by myself. I didn't touch another sites images. --Redemption 22:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC) : I've resigned myself to the fact that we'll never agree on the copyright issue, without getting a judge involved, and I don't have the time, money or frankly, the desire to take it that far. So I'm content to agree to disagree on that point. : As for your images, I didn't say you ripped them off. I said they're altered from the original screens and official images, which was merely repeating what you said about them, so you can't disagree with me there. Tim said above "First of all, we shouldn't use any fan-made images here (we're supposed to chronicle the DCAU as it exists)". I agree with that statement. In that vein, altered images do not belong here, and I am requesting that you replace them with unaltered versions. Cropping to isloate the desired element of the image should be fine, but any alterations to color levels, shading, brightness, contrast, alpha, etc., change the content of the image and shouldn't be used here. Cropping should be the only modification to any images posted. --BoneGnawer 23:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Well, so far, I haven't used any images other then unaltered DVD images so, I don't need to. --Redemption 23:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC) ::Since BoneGnawer says he is "not advocating using the Kryptcom images anymore", I'm going to remove them from the articles they're in to end this dispute. Regardless of who can claim copyright on them (DC or Kryptcom), it's clear that Wikia doesn't have any right to use them beyond fair use, and in situations where there is any complaint over non-free images, I recommend erring on the side of caution and removing them. Angela (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Copyright issues We have had a complaint that "many" articles on this wiki have been taken from worldsfinestonline.com. The mail didn't give specifics (or an address to write back to sadly) so I don't have a lot of details. But on a look around I did find this edit, which appears to be a copy of this. It is very important that work here is original. So I would ask all of you to look at your article and make sure that any material taken from this or other sites is removed - unless of course if has full GFDL permission. I'll call back this way shortly to see how you are getting on with this. Thanks all -- sannse (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC) (Wikia community team) :Guilty. It was I who sent the notice. Sorry for not providing any links, but by then, I think I had already removed most of the copyrighted work. Also, how does the GFDL permission works? The author just has to say "I give permission for you to use my work"? How could he prove he wrote them? ThailogTalk 18:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC) ::It's really the same with any work, the person creating it asserts that they are the author and so hold the copyright, and we trust that unless it's shown differently. GFDL is an add on to the copyright system, rather than something different. Again, the author asserts that they hold the copyright (see the message on the edit screen) but they licence it to the wiki under the GFDL. It's a system of good faith, but then that's true of any writing published anywhere. Of course, it's important that when we find a possible problem that it's fixed quickly, which I hope everyone here will help do - sannse (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC) :::Copyright issues must be corrected, but do not destroy more than necessary when doing so. see J'onn J'onzz. I reverted the page and removed the offending text rather than simply reverting to an earlier version that predated the offending text, but also removed updated images and formatting. Please clean up any other articles that have been unnecessarily damaged in this way. BoneGnawer 16:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ::::I'm afraid that is the role of the contributors here, and in particular the admins here, and not Wikia staff. This is your wiki, and if there is a problem here with copyright violations, then this is something you need to take hold of and work to change. We are here to help of course, but that doesn't mean we can reconstruct articles for you. I don't know this content well enough to know what is a copyright problem and what isn't. But you do. So I ask everyone here to make sure that this site does not contain copyright violations. It's essential for the future of this site. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (Wikia community team) How are things going with this? I see there is some work going on in sourcing and labelling images, that's great. But where text is concerned, just adding a source is not enough. Text must be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation Licence. This is one of the terms of use of Wikia and so a condition of using this site. The article at Clayface, for example, I don't see anything at the source site that suggests the text is usable in this way. And using the text like this can't be said to be fair use. So this needs to be removed or rewritten. I haven't taken it out, to allow you time to look at it, but I hope you will look at this and fix this and other problems soon. -- sannse (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)